__/ [ Martha Adams ] on Thursday 01 March 2007 01:43 \__
> "Dean G." <dguttadauro@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1172674842.379281.26680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Feb 28, 6:05 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Obeying Microsoft: Is Wine the way?
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Using security as an excuse, Microsoft, in its infinite semiwisdom,
>>> | decided awhile back to dictate what versions of Vista can be run
>>> | in a virtualized environment. The main result of Microsoft's
>>> | restrictions may just be to drive such users away from
>>> | Vista entirely.
>>
>>
>> This is true. XP can be virtualized, and it FITS better in such a
>> system than Vista. Why buy Vista ? Eye candy doesn't get work done,
>> and Vista has little else to offer. What it does offer is more than
>> offset by the resource requirements and the new limitations imposes by
>> Vista.
>>
>> Moreover, from an environmental standpoint : How much extra juice (in
>> kilowatt hours) will Vista's eye candy cost than XP or Linux ? Vista
>> has hefty requirements, and to get all of the eye candy, you need at
>> least a GeForce 8800 GTS, which can draw up to 160 watts.
>>
>> Let's see, at 160 watts * 8 hours a day * 365.25 days = 467520 watt
>> hours.
>>
>> The average residential rate is 9.86 cents per kilowatt hour. That's
>> just over $46/year, every year, for eye candy. That doesn't even count
>> the addition wattage used by the upgraded CPU and addition memory many
>> systems will require. For a business it is even worse. Consider an
>> office with 100 such PCs, and the annual cost of eye candy (ACEC --
>> pronounced Akk ! Ekk !) is over $4,600. But that's probably only half
>> the equation, as all that energy creates heat. Unless you live in
>> cooler climates, you will probably need to spend at least that much
>> for additional cooling (air conditioning), bringing the cost up to
>> almost $10,000 per year, every year, for Vista's eye candy.
>>
>> Wow - Vista is the gift that just keeps on ... taking.
>>
>> Dean G.
>
> I think we have an interesting collision here. It's "more eye candy
> complexification using more electric power" vs "the power costs
> significantly more and the eye candy doesn't improve usefulness
> anyway".
>
> The collision arises in context of those nice small Linux machines
> that don't even need fans. Meanwhile, the cost of electric power
> is only going up as fuels and power generation costs grow.
>
> Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2007 Feb 28]
The machine is intended to deliver the most output while requiring the least
input. But another question then arises because old and slow machines
require a lot of power and deliver very little. So it's a tradeoff. Purchase
new hardware (waste) or reduce the low on the existing hardware? Reuse is
probably the key, but industry does not like reuse. It reduces consumer
spendings. Once again, conflicting interests hurt eevrybody but the
exploiting entity.
Symantec: Microsoft conflict of interest is damaging internet
,----[ Quote ]
| Symantec's chief executive has lambasted Microsoft for a dangerous
| conflict of interest as both the provider of an operating system
| and seller of software designed to secure its users.
|
| [...]
|
| Thompson told RSA delegates: "You wouldn't want the company that is
| keeping your books to audit your books. The same logic should apply.
| You wouldn't want the company that created your company's operating
| platform to be the one that is securing it from a broad range of
| threats. It's a huge conflict of interest."
`----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/07/symantec_thompson_microsoft/
--
~~ Best wishes
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bYsxaMyFV2Y http://youtube.com/watch?v=QNb7gPA1JFk
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
2:05am up 37 days 2:23, 6 users, load average: 0.57, 1.30, 1.29
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
